1 / 31

The HEARTH Act Changes to HUD’s Homeless Assistance Programs

The HEARTH Act Changes to HUD’s Homeless Assistance Programs. Norm Suchar March 2010 COSCDA Conference. HEARTH Act Enacted May 20, 2009 Changes HUD’s McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance programs First significant reauthorization since 1992. Overview. Major Changes

tamas
Download Presentation

The HEARTH Act Changes to HUD’s Homeless Assistance Programs

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The HEARTH Act Changes to HUD’s Homeless Assistance Programs Norm Suchar March 2010 COSCDA Conference

  2. HEARTH Act Enacted May 20, 2009 Changes HUD’s McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance programs First significant reauthorization since 1992 Overview

  3. Major Changes More Administrative Funding Emphasizes Prevention Rapid Re-Housing Chronic homelessness Focus on Outcomes Rural Option Overview

  4. Timeline Most changes take effect in the NOFA released in Spring/Summer 2011 Regulations Spring, Summer, or Fall 2010 Public comment period Some changes phased in over several years Overview

  5. Formula and Competitive Funding Formula (ESG) 10% Formula (ESG) 20% Competitive (CoC) 90% Competitive (CoC) 80%

  6. Changes to the ESG (Formula) Program

  7. New ESG = Old ESG + HPRP Roughly the same amount of funding for emergency shelters New funding for homelessness prevention and Rapid Re-Housing similar to HUD’s HPRP Another way to look at ESG changes

  8. Continuum of Care (competitive) Program

  9. Continuum of Care (competitive) Application

  10. Continuum of Care (matching funds)

  11. Projects that serve families cannot refuse to serve families because of the age of the children (i.e. must serve families with adolescent children) Projects must identify person who will be responsible for coordinating child’s education Additional Requirements

  12. HMIS is here to stay! HMIS

  13. Incentives

  14. Project Sponsor Project Sponsor Project Sponsor HUD Project Sponsor Project Sponsor Project Sponsor HUD Unified Funding Agency Unified Funding Agencies

  15. A Collaborative Applicant could apply to become a Unified Funding Agency (UFA) or HUD could designate a Collaborative Applicant as a UFA UFAs would be responsible for ensuring audits and appropriate fiscal controls UFAs would be eligible for up to 3% of a communities award for administrative expenses (on top of the 3% that a collaborative applicant could receive) Unified Funding Agencies

  16. Rural Areas

  17. Rural area defined as— Being located in a rural state (Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota, or Wyoming); Being a CoC with no Metropolitan Statistical Areas; or Being in a CoC with only a rural part of an MSA included in the boundary (HUD will provide more specific definitions later) Rural Areas

  18. Definition of Homelessness/Eligibility

  19. Bigger capital grants Non-competitive renewals for PSH 15-year contracts subject to funding for project-based PSH All Permanent Housing Activities are adjusted for inflation at renewal Additional Changes

  20. What Does It All Mean???

  21. More Administrative Funding Emphasizes Prevention Rapid Re-Housing Permanent Supportive Housing for Chronic Homelessness Focus on Outcomes Rural Options Major Changes

  22. HEARTH Allows up to— 3 percent for Collaborative Applicant 3 percent for Unified Funding Agency 7.5 percent for ESG 10 percent for CoC Project Sponsors Comes out of the same funding as for programs More Administrative Funding

  23. Models for Administering ESG/CoC City/County/State led Non-profit led Funder (e.g. United Way) Dedicated Entity (Community Shelter Board) Public/Private Collaborative Applicant/UFA Options

  24. Project Sponsor Project Sponsor Project Sponsor HUD Project Sponsor Project Sponsor Project Sponsor HUD Unified Funding Agency Unified Funding Agencies

  25. More responsive to project sponsors Align funding resources Align reporting and requirements Why Unified Funding Agency?

  26. This is a chance to fix things that don’t work! Who is part of the CoC Should you consolidate CoCs Better integrate ESG/CoC/TYP Fresh Start

  27. New Focus: Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing ? Old ESG HPRP HPRP New ESG

  28. Rapid Re-Housing for families with children Permanent Supportive Housing for individuals and families experiencing chronic homelessness. CoC Incentives

  29. New Measures Length of Stay Recidivism Newly Homeless Can you measure these? Can you manage for these? Can you influence these? Performance

  30. Who will be the Collaborative Applicant? Are they ready? Can we perform? HMIS ready? Which HPRP programs will continue? Ten Year Plan Get Ready

  31. Norm Suchar Senior Policy Analyst National Alliance to End Homelessness nsuchar@naeh.org www.endhomelessness.org Contact

More Related